Hakob Badalyan has singled out a rather interesting aspect regarding the election of the mayor of Gyumri.
"What happened? The ruling force lost because other forces, which were in the opposition position, took part in a few "fronts". It is unlikely that, for example, in the case of a single candidate, the government would be able to ensure its ratio. Why do I touch up to this? After 2015, in Armenia, it is spoken in Armenia to be the so-called harmfulness of the transition to the transition to the parliamentary model and other. There is a mindset that the presidential or semi-presidential model provides strong and effective management. In my deepest conviction, it is more of a manifestation of "inertial" perceptions, with all respect for those who hold those views. But try to justify it with a fresh image that there is in Gyumri. In Gyumri, it is basically "win" the "classic" parliamentary model logic. In other words, the "large-party" participation in the forces has brought the maximum involvement of public moods, every force was interested in brought to the polling station with the maximum number. When I say, I don't mean to physically go and bring it to other preaching. The result was that the ruling force was able to ensure the first indicator, but generally was unable to prosecute urban government, as the opposition forces were able to solve this problem. This is now the project on the nationwide. Imagine that the number one mandate of the country is not a parliamentary representative, but presidential. This means that the solution to the issue is that one entity gathered the maximum voice, and he assumed the number one mandate of the country. Because, as a rule, even if the opposition is united around a single candidate, it is always easier for the government, which is always easier to solve that one than some of the post-election processes. "
